Gaze2HOI: Gaze-Aware Intention Disambiguation for Egocentric Hand-Object Interaction Forecasting
Authors: Chuanyang Ma, Chenye Wang, Yixuan Wang, Huiling Zhou, Xingqun Qi, Muyi Sun, Man Zhang, Caifeng Shan, Zhenan Sun
Organizations: Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications, Beijing, China · The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong, China · North China Electric Power University, Beijing, China · the Suzhou Campus, Nanjing University, Suzhou, China · the Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China
Anticipating how users will interact with their surroundings is essential for proactive systems that provide timely assistance in AR, VR, and embodied applications. Prior work typically forecasts hand-object interactions directly from historical observations, leaving intention and contact geometry implicit. However, similar observation histories can precede semantically or geometrically distinct futures. Inspired by behavioral evidence that gaze can provide early cues for underlying intention, we propose Gaze2HOI, a gaze-aware framework that formulates hand-object interaction forecasting as a hierarchical problem comprising intention inference, contact grounding, and coupled hand-object motion generation. Specifically, Gaze2HOI first weights gaze cues by fixation strength and recency, and uses them to modulate the visual representations of a vision-language model (VLM) through Temporal Gaze Saliency Modulation (TGSM), thereby reducing semantic ambiguity in intention inference. Subsequently, an Anticipatory Contact Grounding (ACG) module maps these structured intentions into explicit contact, support, and placement fields, effectively mitigating geometric ambiguity. Driven by these explicit conditions, a diffusion-based model jointly generates the 6-DoF object trajectories and future articulated motion of both hands. To evaluate Gaze2HOI, we further introduce EgoAIM, a phase-aware benchmark that organizes egocentric hand-object interactions into four phases defined by evolving hand-object relations and provides fine-grained intention annotations. Extensive experiments demonstrate that Gaze2HOI achieves state-of-the-art performance in both intention inference and motion forecasting, even approaching oracle-level end-to-end performance in specific interaction phases. Project page: https://gaze2hoi.github.io/.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1: Egocentric hand-object interaction forecasting. Gaze2HOI forecasts coordinated interactions involving both hands and multiple objects across four phases: Establish Contact , Move , Manipulate , and Put Down . L and R denote the left and right hands, respectively.
Fig. 2: Hierarchical intention disambiguation in Gaze2HOI. Gaze-aware intention inference reduces semantic ambiguity about the intended object and action. Anticipatory Contact Grounding then combines the inferred intentions with object geometry and interaction history to localize likely contact regions, reducing geometric ambiguity. The resulting semantic and geometric cues guide coordinated hand-object motion forecasting.
Fig. 3: Illustration of EgoAIM annotations. (Top) A 2-second window pairing egocentric observations with future hand-object interaction. (Middle) Alignment between 2D egocentric observations and 3D geometric annotations. (Bottom) Structured future intentions annotated separately for each hand.
Fig. 4: Overview of Gaze2HOI. Hierarchical inference from egocentric observations to future hand-object interactions: (a) TGSM modulates VLM visual features with gaze cues to infer structured per-hand intentions. (b) ACG grounds inferred intentions into explicit 3D contact, support, and placement fields. (c) Conditional motion diffusion leverages semantic and geometric conditions to jointly forecast articulated hand motion and 6-DoF object trajectories.
Fig. 5: Qualitative comparison of hand-object interaction forecasting on EgoAIM. From top to bottom, the rows correspond to Establish Contact , Move , Manipulate , and Put Down . Observed inputs and ground-truth (GT) futures are shown alongside predictions from representative baselines and Gaze2HOI.
Fig. 6: Illustration of gaze injection strategies. Each panel shows the image and corresponding prompt for the same egocentric observation. The TGSM overlay is for visualization only; gaze cues are injected through visual feature modulation.
Method
Active-hand EM (%) ↑
Median Point Error (px) ↓
Sample EM@100px (%) ↑
No Gaze
81.76
51.2
72.67
Gaze Text
83.95
38.0
77.44
Gaze Marker
86.20
39.2
80.85
Gaze Trace
85.05
40.2
78.35
Gaze Spotlight
83.22
50.7
76.00
TGSM (ours)
87.84
35.2
82.29
TABLE III: Comparison of gaze injection strategies.
Model
Gaze Injection
Sample EM@100px (%) ↑
GPT-5.4
Gaze Marker
39.21
Gemini 3.1 Pro
Gaze Marker
25.66
Qwen2-VL-2B
TGSM
68.81
Qwen2-VL-7B
TGSM
77.97
Qwen3-VL-2B
TGSM
69.04
TABLE IV: Intention inference performance across VLMs.
Fig. 7: Visualization of geometric disambiguation via ACG. ACG predicts future contact regions using contact priors and observed interactions. Warmer colors indicate higher relative contact intensity within each map.
Intention
H-ADE ↓
O-ADE ↓
Reach-SR ↑
Place-Hit ↑
None
6.49
1.05
56.91
18.94
Predicted
4.16 −35.9%
0.72 −31.4%
92.43 +35.5pp
44.93 +26.0pp
Oracle
3.65 −43.8%
0.55 −47.6%
96.22 +39.3pp
95.59 +76.7pp
TABLE V: Motion forecasting across intention conditions.
Setting
H-ADE ↓
O-ADE ↓
Reach-SR ↑
Place-Hit ↑
w/o TGSM
4.32
0.79
91.61
33.48
w/o Gaze
4.65
0.87
81.25
26.87
w/o ACG
4.35
0.78
88.82
33.48
Full Model
4.16
0.72
92.43
44.93
TABLE VI: End-to-end ablation study of Gaze2HOI.
Fig. 8: Failure cases of Gaze2HOI. Examples of (a) purpose confusion, (b) contact-part confusion, and (c) hand assignment errors, with predicted intentions and the corresponding future interactions shown alongside ground truth.